Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2009 18:24:51 GMT -5
I was speaking to someone today that knows much about the early days of the fellowship and also knew EC well. I asked about the Trinity; did the early workers believe in the Trinity and did EC too believe? This person said the terminology was never used but that the early workers and EC certainly did believe that Jesus was God made flesh, not just simply the Son of God. This person also believes that the current fellowship teaching in Ireland is that of the Trinity and has ever been thus. September, I must confess that in thirty years in the bosom of 2x2ism I never once gave the concept of the Trinity a moment’s thought. Perhaps I was too busy thinking of girls and football. But I doubt that anyone else I knew ever did either. And why on earth would they? In my experience the entire 2x2 carry-on was purely about workers and meetings and finding a half decent lover at convention. Obedience to the workers and attendance at the meetings is what counted; the more obedient one was and the more meetings one attended then with a lot less stripes would one be beaten. And if you could provide forty of the faithful with an excuse for buying a new hat then even better. The harvest is small and the labourers are many and the more offspring you have the more the labourers can eat at future conventions. Of course the 2x2’s have views on the colour of your hair and the length of your dress and the size of your feet but the idea that the 2x2's (generally) have a view on concepts such as the Trinity (never mind a united view) is rather fanciful which is exactly the reason why I pointed out the sheer futility of embarking upon the thread “Let's Write a 2x2 Doctrine”. (How is that going anyway?) Of course on the basis of the normal distribution curve there will inevitably be some who will give much thought to such things and will find answers which are very much to their liking. (I guess if one has neither radio nor television nor an interest in the arts or science then one has to think of something.) I do recall hymns about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one and loads of stuff about God’s Dear Son and leaving the Father’s home on a high which are possibly contradictory, but I really don’t think most people really cared a fiddler’s fiddle. So long as you were in obedience and in attendance and weren’t found feckin around the public toilets in Bangor then you could basically believe whatever you wanted. I mean if your friend is claiming that every junior worker has a firm view (or even a basic grasp?) on why they believe Jesus is God or the Son of God then perhaps I am also part of the Trinity. You know I never encountered any discussion among 2x2’s or ex-2x2s about whether Jesus is God or the Son of God until I stumbled upon this Board and became witness to such a futile lot of nonsense. Of course there are those here who have chosen to believe in one of the two scenarios in the same way that there are those who choose to believe in transubstantiation and hobgoblins as is their prerogative. But to spend long periods of one's life trying to prove to others that one's view of the improvable and improbable is slightly more probable than theirs is a classic exercise in the art of futility. For me quite frankly they are both ridiculous scenarios although I must confess that the idea that the God of the universe should be hanging around Nazareth for thirty years in a white tunic before embarking upon something useful (exactly the same length of time as me you will notice) is slightly more preposterous than sending some one else to hang around for you. If the 2x2’s really do all have a belief that Jesus is/was God then they are even crazier than I previously imagined. But I have a sneaking feeling that they haven’t. I certainly hadn’t. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Dec 26, 2009 21:05:05 GMT -5
Mark Huddle the overseer in Washington state preached Jesus is both God and Man 5/10/2008.
Evertt Swanson, a senior worker in Washington state preached Jesus the I am that I am of the Old and New Testament.
Leslie White at Australia convention 2006.... and John Wegter.
Jack Carroll, Dave Christie, Tom Lyness, Tharold Sylvester, Leo Stancliff, George Walker, Mable Gibson, Evertt Blair, Carson Cowan. Evan Jones from Greenland/Aust. often preached that Jesus was half man and half God...or part man and part God.....He was one who could take the 1st ch. of Gen and go through the whole Bible tying it all together into the chs. 21 &22 of Revs. I enjoyed him immensely. If all these workers have preached Jesus is God,, then WHY is it IF any of the friends speak of the same in mtgs. they're either reprimanded to not speak of that any more OR they are invited to leave the fellowship?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2009 6:16:03 GMT -5
Nathan wrote:
~~ Many of the friends and workers today believe the word God refers ONLY to the Father.... Jesus is only the Son of God. They don't dig deeper into the word of God to find out the truth Jesus is more than just the Son of God.
This is correct Nathan. However, there is a lot of simplicity and understanding in believing God is the Father and Jesus is the son. It fits well with many portions of scripture. After all, there are specific passages in scripture which tell us salvation comes through having faith in Jesus "the son of God," but I am not aware of any that mention such for "God the Son," or even believing Jesus "is" God! Therefore it seems reasonable that our focus should be on believing in Jesus the Son of God.
Whilst I see Jesus both as God and the Son of God, these are in different contexts and I'm sure some of the passages in scripture refer to God in both singular sense (meaning the Father only) and in others, meaning the Father and Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by pilgrim on Dec 27, 2009 23:53:56 GMT -5
September, I must confess that in thirty years in the bosom of 2x2ism I never once gave the concept of the Trinity a moment’s thought. Perhaps I was too busy thinking of girls and football. But I doubt that anyone else I knew ever did either. And why on earth would they? In my experience the entire 2x2 carry-on was purely about workers and meetings and finding a half decent lover at convention. Obedience to the workers and attendance at the meetings is what counted; the more obedient one was and the more meetings one attended then with a lot less stripes would one be beaten. And if you could provide forty of the faithful with an excuse for buying a new hat then even better. The harvest is small and the labourers are many and the more offspring you have the more the labourers can eat at future conventions. Of course the 2x2’s have views on the colour of your hair and the length of your dress and the size of your feet but the idea that the 2x2's (generally) have a view on concepts such as the Trinity (never mind a united view) is rather fanciful which is exactly the reason why I pointed out the sheer futility of embarking upon the thread “Let's Write a 2x2 Doctrine”. (How is that going anyway?) Of course on the basis of the normal distribution curve there will inevitably be some who will give much thought to such things and will find answers which are very much to their liking. (I guess if one has neither radio nor television nor an interest in the arts or science then one has to think of something.) I do recall hymns about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one and loads of stuff about God’s Dear Son and leaving the Father’s home on a high which are possibly contradictory, but I really don’t think most people really cared a fiddler’s fiddle. So long as you were in obedience and in attendance and weren’t found feckin around the public toilets in Bangor then you could basically believe whatever you wanted. I mean if your friend is claiming that every junior worker has a firm view (or even a basic grasp?) on why they believe Jesus is God or the Son of God then perhaps I am also part of the Trinity. You know I never encountered any discussion among 2x2’s or ex-2x2s about whether Jesus is God or the Son of God until I stumbled upon this Board and became witness to such a futile lot of nonsense. Of course there are those here who have chosen to believe in one of the two scenarios in the same way that there are those who choose to believe in transubstantiation and hobgoblins as is their prerogative. But to spend long periods of one's life trying to prove to others that one's view of the improvable and improbable is slightly more probable than theirs is a classic exercise in the art of futility. For me quite frankly they are both ridiculous scenarios although I must confess that the idea that the God of the universe should be hanging around Nazareth for thirty years in a white tunic before embarking upon something useful (exactly the same length of time as me you will notice) is slightly more preposterous than sending some one else to hang around for you. If the 2x2’s really do all have a belief that Jesus is/was God then they are even crazier than I previously imagined. But I have a sneaking feeling that they haven’t. I certainly hadn’t. Matt10 I just gotta say that was feckin' genius Matt10! Thouroughly enjoyed it. You're absolutely right, and my eyes glaze over pretty quick on this topic too, as any garden-variety 2x2's would. Not an issue to 99.9% of them, plain and simple. Just show up at meeting, have a properly conforming and comforting spiel prepared, and you can diddle around as much as you dare, but just don't get caught and you're golden..
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Dec 28, 2009 8:16:48 GMT -5
Nathan wrote: ~~ Many of the friends and workers today believe the word God refers ONLY to the Father.... Jesus is only the Son of God. They don't dig deeper into the word of God to find out the truth Jesus is more than just the Son of God.This is correct Nathan. However, there is a lot of simplicity and understanding in believing God is the Father and Jesus is the son. It fits well with many portions of scripture. After all, there are specific passages in scripture which tell us salvation comes through having faith in Jesus "the son of God," but I am not aware of any that mention such for "God the Son," or even believing Jesus "is" God! Therefore it seems reasonable that our focus should be on believing in Jesus the Son of God. Whilst I see Jesus both as God and the Son of God, these are in different contexts and I'm sure some of the passages in scripture refer to God in both singular sense (meaning the Father only) and in others, meaning the Father and Jesus. ~~ Yes, I agree with you that Jesus both as God and the Son of God.... And there are passages in scripture refer to God in both singluar sense meaning the Father only and in others, meaning the Father AND Jesus.
I believe it is too difficult for our minds to grasp Jesus existed in the form of God like unto His heavenly Father before he came down from heaven... and how Christ existed in the form of God as the I AM that I AM and spoke to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, king David, and the prophets of His plans that someday He would be born as a living human being and die on Calvary's Cross to redeem humanity from eternal death.
These words of Jesus has helped me understand better that Jesus is God the Son or God the Saviour..... Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) God the Father never had to descend onto the earth, did He? His Son, God the Son was the emissary in the OT...but with the mind of the Father, Right? Only God the Son has ascended and descended from Heaven to earth according to Jesus own words.
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 31, 2009 7:51:47 GMT -5
September, I must confess that in thirty years in the bosom of 2x2ism I never once gave the concept of the Trinity a moment’s thought. Perhaps I was too busy thinking of girls and football. But I doubt that anyone else I knew ever did either. And why on earth would they? In my experience the entire 2x2 carry-on was purely about workers and meetings and finding a half decent lover at convention. Obedience to the workers and attendance at the meetings is what counted; the more obedient one was and the more meetings one attended then with a lot less stripes would one be beaten. And if you could provide forty of the faithful with an excuse for buying a new hat then even better. The harvest is small and the labourers are many and the more offspring you have the more the labourers can eat at future conventions. Of course the 2x2’s have views on the colour of your hair and the length of your dress and the size of your feet but the idea that the 2x2's (generally) have a view on concepts such as the Trinity (never mind a united view) is rather fanciful which is exactly the reason why I pointed out the sheer futility of embarking upon the thread “Let's Write a 2x2 Doctrine”. (How is that going anyway?) Of course on the basis of the normal distribution curve there will inevitably be some who will give much thought to such things and will find answers which are very much to their liking. (I guess if one has neither radio nor television nor an interest in the arts or science then one has to think of something.) I do recall hymns about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one and loads of stuff about God’s Dear Son and leaving the Father’s home on a high which are possibly contradictory, but I really don’t think most people really cared a fiddler’s fiddle. So long as you were in obedience and in attendance and weren’t found feckin around the public toilets in Bangor then you could basically believe whatever you wanted. I mean if your friend is claiming that every junior worker has a firm view (or even a basic grasp?) on why they believe Jesus is God or the Son of God then perhaps I am also part of the Trinity. You know I never encountered any discussion among 2x2’s or ex-2x2s about whether Jesus is God or the Son of God until I stumbled upon this Board and became witness to such a futile lot of nonsense. Of course there are those here who have chosen to believe in one of the two scenarios in the same way that there are those who choose to believe in transubstantiation and hobgoblins as is their prerogative. But to spend long periods of one's life trying to prove to others that one's view of the improvable and improbable is slightly more probable than theirs is a classic exercise in the art of futility. For me quite frankly they are both ridiculous scenarios although I must confess that the idea that the God of the universe should be hanging around Nazareth for thirty years in a white tunic before embarking upon something useful (exactly the same length of time as me you will notice) is slightly more preposterous than sending some one else to hang around for you. If the 2x2’s really do all have a belief that Jesus is/was God then they are even crazier than I previously imagined. But I have a sneaking feeling that they haven’t. I certainly hadn’t. Matt10 I just gotta say that was feckin' genius Matt10! Thouroughly enjoyed it. You're absolutely right, and my eyes glaze over pretty quick on this topic too, as any garden-variety 2x2's would. Not an issue to 99.9% of them, plain and simple. Just show up at meeting, have a properly conforming and comforting spiel prepared, and you can diddle around as much as you dare, but just don't get caught and you're golden.. How I larfed and larfed too! It's all true. However, our family must have been somewhat different - maybe it was the bad company we kept outwith the meetings. We are very good friends with a number of Baptists and Brethren who as we all know, generally have a thorough knowledge of the Bible. Not like us in the meetings, it has to be said and it is here I fully endorse what Matt10 says about the whole thing being about workers and meetings and more of who was in the meeting rather than what was said. Anyway, conversations with our Baptist and Brethren friends often veered towards spiritual matters. Not what our "professing" friends would ever talk about for the most part and I felt like I knew nothing, I wasn't even a decent Christian, I couldn't comment knowledgeably on most of the key events in Jesus' life and I'd never even heard of the rapture! I felt like I was letting the fellowship down; I couldn't present clear arguments for women preachers, for a homeless ministry, for a church in the home and women not wearing hats when just a matter of 10 or so years previously, a sister worker wouldn't stand on the platform in the mission without one. (There have been many attempts here by Nathan, Bert, Kiwi and others to present clear arguments but they are countered quite equally by arguments to the contrary by others well versed in the scriptures.) I never peddled the lies about the fellowship being the one that Jesus established while here on Earth but I did make it my business to try to read up on various matters previously discussed with my friends, one was the Trinity, another the matter of the fellowship not believing in the Blood of Christ amongst others. Naturally these topics would be on my mind when I'd next meet "professing" friends and we'd discuss them but I do know that we were unusual in that regard. It's just as Matt10 says: workers, meetings, workers, mission, workers, convention, workers and finding a mate for the vast majority of the professing people I know. Of course one might wonder what a belief or otherwise in the Trinity might do to affect one's salvation but there is the rather real issue of being confronted by Christians from other denominations who really know their Bibles trying to discuss things and the hapless chumps in the fellowship being at a loss how to justify or reject doctrine/dogma or practises. It makes the teaching practises of the fellowship look very poor and even considered a virtue amongst those in the fellowship to be lacking any theological education whatsoever. One doesn't need to study the collected thoughts of Joe Bloggs on the life and times of Stephen for example, but properly structured Bible studies addressing themes or fellowship dogma would equip the average fellowship chump with some knowledge with which to face criticism or query and even promote the fellowship in a positive way rather than always finding one has to defend the doctrine/dogma with "Well, Uncle Tommie said at convention that we shouldn't..."
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Dec 31, 2009 8:12:53 GMT -5
"another the matter of the fellowship not believing in the Blood of Christ amongst others. " September, I'm not sure what you're meaning in this statement! I've always been instructed on the blood of Christ and it's cleansing power, the necessity of it to make a sinner clean...but then my Gram was raised by a hardshelled Baptist minister as well?
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 31, 2009 11:44:53 GMT -5
Sorry, I should have clarified my point. In Ireland the common understanding of other Christian denominations is that the fellowship doesn't believe in the "Blood of Christ". By this I mean (or rather my Brethren, Baptist, Presbyterian and Free Presbyterian friends mean...) that the fellowship does not believe in the finished work of Jesus. They have told me that the fellowship believes that we must "work our way into Heaven". Of course I used to vehemently deny this but on reflection, there is much to indicate this is the case.
I think it is a good thing to be challenged on our beliefs. I find there are many in the fellowship in Ireland today that simply go to the meetings because their parents did. They have no understanding of Bible, of Jesus or of God. Of course they know the basics: Adam and Eve sinned, God sent various prophets to tell the Jews to smarten themselves but the Jews ignored them so finally He sent His Son to die for our (those in the fellowship and those pending acceptance in the fellowship) sins. Jesus rose after three days but we're not quite sure why that really matters and God sent His Holy Spirit to guide us and the workers when doing His will. If we're not good people, going to every meeting, a minimum of two conventions (two and a half is good, three excessive and your motives suspect) two Christmas meetings (two is good, three again suspect and half days are also suspect) and making it out to every mission (100% attendance is the minimum expected), and rolling out the red carpet for worker visits, then we're doomed to a lost eternity. We don't have to do charitable works because Jesus didn't. We don't have to visit the old and infirm but if you do, they must be part of the fellowship. Other wrinklies and sickies don't count.
We wade through Bible studies and repeat what the first person to pontificate on the chapter said: I enjoyed Galatians 4 and am glad that Jesus Christ has set us free. I long to be more like Jesus in the coming days... The vast majority haven't a notion what all the talk of servants, bondwomen, heirs and angels is about (and I must study it further myself) and don't care. So long as a trite little message can be trotted out in the meeting, we feel we've done our part, that another meeting and the associated pressures of "bringing bread" is over.
There are those that do not fall into the category above but they are few. Too few. And when we come across them, we value them. They aren't necessarily workers. Quite often they are just ordinary Joes to whom their salvation and their relationship with God and Jesus is very real and it is apparent they are feeding on more than the workers are able to provide.
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 31, 2009 13:31:32 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply Nathan and thank you for not pretending everything is rosy within the fellowship. I should point out however, that the passiveness I see in the fellowship is not confined to it. I see it in other churches, the Presbyterian, Anglican, Catholic and to a lesser extent in the Baptist, Brethren and Pentecostal Churches. That might just be an Irish/Northern Irish thing though. I know the Presbyterian Church in Ireland is examining itself at present, wondering what it is doing wrong or not providing for those large numbers that have left the church. Of course I don't have any information as to how they are doing this and don't have statistics for membership but I do think it interesting that firstly they are aware there is a problem and secondly, they are prepared to look at the causes. I expect they'll then do a third thing and address the issues raised in order to bring people back to Christ. This is what the fellowship ought to be doing too. People are dissatisfied and either leave and never darken the door of a church again or they find a church that feeds their need. The issue about the fudging the facts about the founding of the fellowship is only one part of the dissatisfaction (I can't be sure how big it is but from these boards, it would seem significant) but there is sizeable dissatisfaction with the quality of the teaching, the lack of pastoral care, and above all, accountability.
It's all very well to say that worker X does one thing and worker Y does it too therefore it must be good and right, but there ought to be unity in teaching, in doctrine/dogma and a focus on feeding not just "babes in the way", but also those that have a good grasp of the scriptures and a strong faith in God. Young people ought to be challenged to think about what "professing Christ" means (it's not just so the workers allow you to date someone else professing) workers should channel more of their time into ministering to young people in an effort to explain to them the basis of their beliefs if nothing else.
While there is ample evidence to suggest that the friends for the most part are satisfied that monetary contributions are wisely used, there ought to be some transparency on such matters, even if simply to prove to the doubters that money is not being squandered. There is adequate administrative abilities within the fellowship to produce simple information which would likely be adequate for most detractors.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jan 8, 2010 1:13:06 GMT -5
Jesus rose after three days but we're not quite sure why that really matters "Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory." (cf. 1 Cor 16:22) Wrinklies and sickies. You all do have a way with the English language. Love it.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jan 8, 2010 8:24:40 GMT -5
Sorry, I should have clarified my point. In Ireland the common understanding of other Christian denominations is that the fellowship doesn't believe in the "Blood of Christ". By this I mean (or rather my Brethren, Baptist, Presbyterian and Free Presbyterian friends mean...) that the fellowship does not believe in the finished work of Jesus. They have told me that the fellowship believes that we must "work our way into Heaven". Of course I used to vehemently deny this but on reflection, there is much to indicate this is the case. I think it is a good thing to be challenged on our beliefs. I find there are many in the fellowship in Ireland today that simply go to the meetings because their parents did. They have no understanding of Bible, of Jesus or of God. Of course they know the basics: Adam and Eve sinned, God sent various prophets to tell the Jews to smarten themselves but the Jews ignored them so finally He sent His Son to die for our (those in the fellowship and those pending acceptance in the fellowship) sins. Jesus rose after three days but we're not quite sure why that really matters and God sent His Holy Spirit to guide us and the workers when doing His will. If we're not good people, going to every meeting, a minimum of two conventions (two and a half is good, three excessive and your motives suspect) two Christmas meetings (two is good, three again suspect and half days are also suspect) and making it out to every mission (100% attendance is the minimum expected), and rolling out the red carpet for worker visits, then we're doomed to a lost eternity. We don't have to do charitable works because Jesus didn't. We don't have to visit the old and infirm but if you do, they must be part of the fellowship. Other wrinklies and sickies don't count. We wade through Bible studies and repeat what the first person to pontificate on the chapter said: I enjoyed Galatians 4 and am glad that Jesus Christ has set us free. I long to be more like Jesus in the coming days... The vast majority haven't a notion what all the talk of servants, bondwomen, heirs and angels is about (and I must study it further myself) and don't care. So long as a trite little message can be trotted out in the meeting, we feel we've done our part, that another meeting and the associated pressures of "bringing bread" is over. There are those that do not fall into the category above but they are few. Too few. And when we come across them, we value them. They aren't necessarily workers. Quite often they are just ordinary Joes to whom their salvation and their relationship with God and Jesus is very real and it is apparent they are feeding on more than the workers are able to provide. I think what you've found in your country is just as true in the USA....there are those who go to a particular church just because their grandparents/parents have....and oddly enough, the majority of them do that for that reason only and in the fellowship just being "active" and "loyal" gets them told that they belong to the only true way and the workers pet them and make them feel they are saved. It is sad, but we can find the same thing within other denominations, can we not? I've heard many folks in the fellowship deliver a very stirring speech in mtgs. but find little of that in their everyday lives...the zeal for the Lord just isn't there...now the zeal for the fellowship may be but then that all comes down to the necessity of human being accepted in their chosen society. But it will all come down to this and as Jesus said He'd say...."Depart, I know you not." To me that is the most frightful thing and that would be having to hear my Saviour say that. I appreciate those who live to just have a closer relationship with our Lord and Saviour. Regardless of who may or may not accept/approve of them!
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 9, 2010 11:35:59 GMT -5
It was not so much Edward Cooney's refusal to adhere to the rules set out by the leadership that resulted in his excommunication but it was his refusal teach the living witness doctrine. On what my research shows I doubt very much if Cooney ever really believed this doctrine at any stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2010 11:18:10 GMT -5
Samantha Said : Is this why so much whispering and talking goes on "behind the scenes"in 2x2ism? It always seemed so devious to me hearing the opposite views aired but never openly before the elders and head guys. It is kind of odd alright. And yet no one has the guts to step right up in meeting and talk about these things openly as you say. ... So far no one that I know of has done this. Instead they have to whisper about what they wish they had the courage to say. .... Yes, lack of "guts" is part of it. I know for myself that was. But I also realized that there were a number of other things lacking within me that prevented me from saying anything about one issue or another. Maybe I wanted to get insistent and preachy about it. Maybe I wanted to tell them off and leave, which seems to be a typical ex or ex wanna be method. Most likely I didn't have the interpersonal skills to do it in a way that works for both of us. Maybe "they" weren't actually friends, but rather "The Friends' - a Huge difference in attitude eh? Yes it's a character builder to work through these things within yourself first and be successful in finding a win win solution. Seems like most people have neither the compassion, love, nor patience for this. Whack the kid if he don't get it. They need an attitude adjustment with a 2x4 upside the head, a dolt slap, etc. etc. Typical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2010 11:42:08 GMT -5
Just added to TTT: An Address On Sunday Evening 16th December, 1950 During Preparations For Convention By W.C.C.Then, "we preach not ourselves." We do not wish to exalt ourselves or our own name. That was the lamentable and dreadful sin of Edward Cooney. We had to come to the definite belief after many years of patience that he preached himself. His message was to exalt his own name, which has been put upon God's people and which God's people reject and resent. "We preach Christ Jesus the Lord and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake.” You ministers for Christ’s sake; why am I here, why are these brothers here, why are these sisters here, because we want to be your servants for Jesus’ sake. Interesting opinion from Bill C. Are there any historical writings from or sermons from EC to support it?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 12, 2010 13:52:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jan 19, 2010 14:15:07 GMT -5
It is true that EC "promoted" himself in his later years. He was preaching in the Diamond in Enniskillen towards the end of his life and a former worker (one of the Barton sisters but I can't recall which) admonished him publicly saying that he spoke of Eddie Cooney's sacrifice in 1900 and he's still doing it today. She advised him to preach Jesus' sacrifice, it being the only one that mattered. EC was inclined to mention from time to time the family business that he had rejected in order to preach the Gospel and particularly around Enniskillen, just exactly what he had sacrificed would have been well known. It is interesting in the latest version of the "Authors of Hymns Old & New" booklet, that Edward Cooney is credited as being an "Independent evangelist" (implying, of course, that he was totally independent of the current fellowship.) In the previous version of the booklet, his name was left out altogether. It is interesting how a group can attempt to deny or alter its history. I think that is called "revisionist history"? It is a peculiar situation, when a group has disowned its founding fathers (Irvine and Cooney). I think part of the reason was that the workers wanted people to follow "that which is from the beginning" rather than have people follow "founders". There's probably been some good intentions somewhere in there, but it got out of hand. There's an opportunity for today's ministry to clear this whole mess up by being honest and straight-forward about the fellowship's history. Some workers are, but many are still in denial.
|
|
|
Post by hannaruth on Jan 20, 2010 9:31:42 GMT -5
System? You talking about Jesus' System? Let me tell you about "system speak" At the last convention I attended I wrote down how many times anything remotely resembling "system" were mentioned. Okay? Two (2)total references to Jesus (Messiah, Son of God, The Lamb, He, Him, His etc..) Approximately fifteen hundred (1500)One was about a third world lady who moved to America, and later wrote to a worker still laboring in her country to say she understood what the cost of ministry was because she could see what that man left behind. And that reminds her of what Jesus left behind. Isn't that nice? "System" No, actually, how can it be "nice"?
The "cost"of the Ministry has nothing whatever to do with leaving material goods behind, nor even leaving parents, siblings and friends.
Many people in life never had material wealth, nor opportunities, countless millions never had much to keep or leave. Many others never had family, not of their own choosing, many more lost all relatives in war. There are millions of people who through no fault of their own, nor choice never had any of these things.
People in wealthy countries have set a value on material wealth that is unrealistic in three quarters of the world at least.
It is sad that workers proclaim the sacrifice of such things instead of proclaiming the great privilege that they have to be able to free themselves of earthly ties in order to become more spiritual and consequently be more help in the world. Sad that having done this, some are helpful in neither situation. Some.]
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 20, 2010 19:05:36 GMT -5
It is sad that workers proclaim the sacrifice of such things instead of proclaiming the great privilege that they have to be able to free themselves of earthly ties in order to become more spiritual and consequently be more help in the world. Sad that having done this, some are helpful in neither situation. Some.]You did notice that it was a person from one of those countries which doesn't have so many material things who took note of what the worker left behind to go there? I seriously doubt that worker EVER said anything about what was left behind. I didn't quite follow how this part had anything to do with the topic of sacrifice: << Many people in life never had material wealth, nor opportunities, countless millions never had much to keep or leave. Many others never had family, not of their own choosing, many more lost all relatives in war. There are millions of people who through no fault of their own, nor choice never had any of these things.People in wealthy countries have set a value on material wealth that is unrealistic in three quarters of the world at least. >> Because there are people who have almost nothing to sacrifice, that makes what anyone does sacrifice of no importance? I agree, the material sacrifices aren't what counts, but it was someone else who pointed out that there WERE material sacrifices. Or maybe she just meant the privileges of meetings, conventions, fellowship, etc.
|
|
|
Post by electbygrace on Jan 20, 2010 20:28:53 GMT -5
It is sad that workers proclaim the sacrifice of such things instead of proclaiming the great privilege that they have to be able to free themselves of earthly ties in order to become more spiritual and consequently be more help in the world. Sad that having done this, some are helpful in neither situation. hannaruth, your words make sense to me. It should be described as great joy, not an overemphasis on sacrifice and hardship. At least, if it's a true calling to Christ's ministry. You're right about the material wealth and expectations of western society, and incidentally Bert comes from just such a land. Of course Bert's workers never mention 'the system'. It would be silly to expect that. The reinforcing of what we recognize as 'the system of 2x2' is done subliminally yet very effectively. That is one thing workers are skilled at. They have had much training and exposure to it. The thing you mention, that some are sadly not helpful either spiritually or in sharing naturally from our western abundance, is probably symptomatic of what Eddie Cooney objected to long ago. The lack of freedom to be influenced by the Holy Spirit.
|
|
moline
Junior Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by moline on Jan 21, 2010 0:30:50 GMT -5
yes you are right ''electbygrace'' Eddie opposed the setting up of districts and workers being sent to area's . he believed they should go as the spirit guided them. I do know this as one who personally knew Eddie , in his last days he did dwell on '' walking with jesus in his rejection'' he was refering also to the ''outcasts'' as the cooney followers are still known. Not too many of these left now . I personally only know 2 here in aussie land
|
|
moline
Junior Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by moline on Jan 21, 2010 0:45:17 GMT -5
on the ''blood of jesus issue'' The 2x2 doctrine is not believing in the finnished work on the cross I have heard many times at funerals workers alluding to the fact that the person ''finnished faithfully'' refering to one who stayed in their version of faith I have also heard them refer to any that leave and fellowship in other sects that thay have ''missed out'' They clearly believe that the blood of christ is not enough , you also have to ''walk in the way'' The way being the 2x2 way
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 21, 2010 18:02:32 GMT -5
I have heard many times at funerals workers alluding to the fact that the person ''finnished faithfully'' refering to one who stayed in their version of faith Maybe you can comment on what Paul meant when he said, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: " (2 Tim. 4:7)
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Jan 21, 2010 22:13:19 GMT -5
Maybe you can comment on what Paul meant when he said, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: " (2 Tim. 4:7) emy with our background, it's hard to approach this issue with open minds, so that God can speak deeply to us through His Spirit. Maybe you could comment on what Paul meant by these inspired words to the Ephesians "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) I now read it as saved by grace through our faith in Christ, period. Not "by grace, through faith, as long as you are in the right 'way' [read: natural form] of fellowship and worship" To try to answer yours, I think Paul meant he had been a good soldier for Christ, that he felt his purpose in this life had now been fulfilled, and that he had remained faithful to God in his heart and also in his walk of faith through this life.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 22, 2010 0:10:06 GMT -5
LDU, we ARE saved by grace but that also changes our walk. (See Eph 4)
Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
And toward the end of Eph 4:17 -- This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, ....etc.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Jan 22, 2010 0:19:51 GMT -5
LDU, we ARE saved by grace but that also changes our walk. (See Eph 4) Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. And toward the end of Eph 4:17 -- This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, .... etc.emy we're in TOTAL agreement on this. It's a walk by faith and under the leading of the Spirit
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 22, 2010 11:22:33 GMT -5
I think this comes back the question of the possibility to loose salvation or not. While most agree that salvation is by grace (Gods unmerited favour), some add that remaining saved relies of "effort" (read "works" or similar). Others say that effort to remain saved means that this denies Jesus "completed work" on Calvary. So comments about our walk, of continuing, remaining, to the end, etc, all imply a continuing salvation dependent on the person. That does not deny "saved by grace", but complicated it to "Saved initially by grace and kept that way by effort".
Nothing seems simple eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 11:39:01 GMT -5
Works are necessary. The just shall live by faith but faith without works is dead. It follows then that the just shall live by faith accompanied by works!
The biggie that follows that is this. What are works?
Most professing/post professing people throughout the world will agree that within the F&W's fellowship, "works" are understood to be receiving the workers, attending every meeting and mission possible, convention, etc. In mainstream Christianity "works" are generally regarded as being in fellowship with and loving likeminded believers (not far removed from the F&W'S), but also largely loving our neighbour in need.
Of course our actions/works have to be carried out with the right spirit otherwise they are not done unto God. I do have a serious issue with a fellowship which preaches a works based Gospel, but at best their works are generally confined to the house of the Holy and more specifically towards the ministerial heirarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 22, 2010 14:35:28 GMT -5
"Most professing/post professing people throughout the world will agree that within the F&W's fellowship, "works" are understood to be receiving the workers, attending every meeting and mission possible, convention, etc."
I suspect there's a substantial difference between what the average "professing" and the average "post professing" person thinnks on this.
|
|